2013 (6) TMI 692 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Appeal returned earlier for presenting before proper court - Held that - Appellant(s) has been ill advised to file application for condonation of delay in the fact situation of the present case for the simple reason that it is a case of representation of the proceedings before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appeals originally filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court were within time. Hence as ordered earlier appeals should proceed for admission on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condoning delay in filing appeals against a decision.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain appeals.
3. Interim relief during the pendency of the appeal(s).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condoning delay in filing appeals against a decision
The judgment addresses the applications for condoning the delay in filing appeals against a decision dated 22nd February, 2011. The appeals were initially presented before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and were returned to the appellant(s) for representation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appeals were represented before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh within 19 days from the order dated 20th February, 2013. The Court held that since the appeals were originally filed within time in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, they should be registered and proceeded on merits. The Court noted that filing for condonation of delay was unnecessary in this case as it was a matter of representation before the correct jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain appeals
The respondent(s) contended that the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, and the appellant(s) challenged the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court observed that the appeals filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court were within the time limit. As the appeals were represented before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh within the prescribed time, the Court concluded that the appeals should proceed for admission on merits. The Court emphasized that the appellant(s) had been ill-advised to file for condonation of delay in this situation, as the appeals were originally filed within the stipulated time frame.

Issue 3: Interim relief during the pendency of the appeal(s)
The appellant(s) sought interim relief during the pendency of the appeal(s), while the respondent(s) requested time to take instructions. The Court deferred the hearing of these applications until 24th June, 2013, to allow the respondent(s) time to prepare. Additionally, it was noted that an appeal against the same decision had already been admitted by the Court and would be heard along with the current appeals. The Court's decision to defer the hearing indicates a fair approach to allow both parties adequate time to present their cases effectively.